ill go with that, FEAR looks nice, but i dunno, overall HL2 still beats it, and that runs smooth as peaches n cream
ill go with that, FEAR looks nice, but i dunno, overall HL2 still beats it, and that runs smooth as peaches n cream
Didn't they showcase the earliest demos for that engine on a 6800U? I'd say that would run it fine on that, and that mid-range (9800Pro, 6600GT) cards of today will run it, albeit at lowest settings. Crescent, you really think they have been building this engine for 1-2 years that can only be run on hardware that was just released 3 months ago?
I don't see why UT2K7 won't run on a 6800GT at high (not ultra-high) settings at 1024x768. It would seem stupid for it not to work right, and no, it won't require a GF7 card to even play. How stupid can you be?
Give me a break. That is just not possible. If its D3D or OGL then it will work, its not as if its Crescent3D technology :| .
Give me a break. That is just not possible. If its D3D or OGL then it will work, its not as if its Crescent3D technology :| .
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
I don't see how anyone can buy that argument when the game has plenty of options to optimize performmace for various systems. I mean sure you may think HL2 or whatever looks better, I think HL2 looks better to but that is because I am more impressed by Valve's art. FEAR uses high res textures like HL2 along with stencil shadowing like D3; so you can't rightly have on at once along with everything else cranked and expect it to run nearly as fast as either of those.
This isn't anything resembling a quote from Epic-
A couple of points on this- first being that we don't know when Gears of War will be shipping. Next would be that Epic was in the past had the name of their UT version match the year in which it ships- I could see the possibility of them pushing it for a Q4 '06 launch date, but calling a Q1 '06 game UT2K7... doesn't mesh well with how they have been handling it.
From the OP-
Pushing a minimum of 50FPS? The OP didn't ask what would be the minimum card to get buy, he is looking for minimum 50FPS, that is going to take some monster hardware even running 800x600.
reallyscrued
Platinum Member
- Jul 28, 2004
- 2,618
- 5
- 81
Please don't use the FEAR argument here, as many have said, it's probably the worst coded game of this year. Anyway, I think this will run on anything better than an FX5200. Out of curiousity, I ran the UT2004 demo on my friends old machine boasting an Willamette core paired with a radeon 7000 with 32 megs of ram. At 800x600, everything at second highest setting, advanced setting disabled, it ran fine. This is with 256 megs of DDR200 ram. In my opinion, Epic always takes scalability as a high regard, otherwise they wouldn't sell as many copies. People screaming you need a R520 to run it smoothly, well yeah, but at 1600x1200 with HDR along with 4xAA and 16xAF. At 10x7 with all the goodies, 6600's should be able to keep up.
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
As I said before:
FEAR uses high res textures like HL2 along with stencil shadowing like D3; so you can't rightly have on at once along with everything else cranked and expect it to run nearly as fast as either of those.
Now please tell me how that makes it "probably the worst coded game of this year." Monlith has been making games for over a decade, unless you happen to be John Carmack or something then I don't think you are any place to talk about their coding ablities.
FEAR uses high res textures like HL2 along with stencil shadowing like D3; so you can't rightly have on at once along with everything else cranked and expect it to run nearly as fast as either of those.
Now please tell me how that makes it "probably the worst coded game of this year." Monlith has been making games for over a decade, unless you happen to be John Carmack or something then I don't think you are any place to talk about their coding ablities.
reallyscrued
Platinum Member
- Jul 28, 2004
- 2,618
- 5
- 81
Ah, I'm sorry, perhaps I should have said "optitimized"
Using both stencil shadows and high res texures shouldn't chug on high end 6800s when DoomIII can be played at 4xAF at 1600x1200 smoothly on the same card. Sure, its missing the high res textures, but it's not like Half Life 2 was very taxing either.
Using both stencil shadows and high res texures shouldn't chug on high end 6800s when DoomIII can be played at 4xAF at 1600x1200 smoothly on the same card. Sure, its missing the high res textures, but it's not like Half Life 2 was very taxing either.
Usually ppl playing at 800x600, medium settings (no AA/AF) are not gonna demand a 50fps minimum. Maybe 50fps average, that's more like it, and I'm guessing a 6800 or a x800 would be able to do a 50fps average at those settings. If you really want 50+ fps at all times, then you'll probably need a 7800gtx at least, maybe more. Hell, if this game turns out to be cpu-heavy, you might not even maintain 50+ fps with a 7800gtx, unless you're running an X2 and the game is multi-threaded.
http://www.beyond3d.com/interviews/ps_precision/
"Long-term (looking out 12+ months), everything's got to be 32-bit IEEE floating point. With the third generation Unreal technology, we expect to require 32-bit IEEE everywhere, and any hardware that doesn't support that will either suffer major quality loss or won't work at all."
"Long-term (looking out 12+ months), everything's got to be 32-bit IEEE floating point. With the third generation Unreal technology, we expect to require 32-bit IEEE everywhere, and any hardware that doesn't support that will either suffer major quality loss or won't work at all."
Too bad Unreal Tournament sucks, with the exception of the first one.
I mean, come on, when your guns look like this: http://images.3dgamers.com/screenimages/games/unrealtourn2k7/ut2007_pc_01.jpg, you know the game is going to be really lame.
I mean, come on, when your guns look like this: http://images.3dgamers.com/screenimages/games/unrealtourn2k7/ut2007_pc_01.jpg, you know the game is going to be really lame.
There's a lot more going on in BF2 and I have things set on high at 1600x1200 with 2x AA without performance hit. Compare that to Fear where it really doesn't look that much better but hardly playable at 1600x1200 with high settings even when it's just one guy on the screen
Specs if you're curious...
AMD 3700 SD
2GB 3200
GF 6800GT
was just about to say you play at 16x12 and 2xaa smoothly? WTF!? then i saw 2Gb of ram.....a definate must for that game
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
Is that you Carmack? If not, what do you know about optimzing a game compared to guys that have been in the indurstry for over a decade?
They high res textures and stencil shadows both take lots of video ram, and that is going to make things chug when you run out of memory regardless of how much you think it shouldn't. That is not even counting all the other effects there, but fortunately the guys are making the game do know how to options for a wide range of hardware which is why they provided us with so many performance options.
Would you rather they just made all the medium options read "high" abd take out the high options so they didn't have to listen to people whine?
If you can't adjust your settings to run FEAR well with that hardware, you just have something broke in your setup and you are lucky you can play BF2, FEAR or anything else at all. Now if you are just turning everything all the way up and then complaining that your hardware can't hang; that isn't the developers fault, they put those options in there for computers that are faster than yours. You are free to upgrade your computer if you want those options to run well, or you can make due with what you have.
FEAR is a piece of crap IMO. It has plenty of options to LOWER details, which isn't really optimizing performance.
Compare:
HL2 @ 1680x1050 w/ FX55 and 7800GTX 4x AA 16AF all settings high:
120-140, often 200+ FPS
F.E.A.R. @ *1024x768* no anti-aliasing! 8x AF on a 7800GTX/FX-55:
54fps average.
You'd almost have to try to design poorly to make it run that bad. To me FEAR is like going to an expensive restaurant and having them plop cow manure on your plate with a straight face and expecting you to pay 600 for some special sauce just to make it edible.
I bet it runs fine on 9800 Pro's. Epic makes really scalable engines. Certainly will be a different experience on a 7800/R520 I'm sure though. Supposed to have 10x geometric and 100x shadow/light detail of the UT 2K3/3 engine.
I'll probably upgrade everything around the time this game comes out, so I'm not concerned about how it will run on my current system. I have always been a big fan of the UT games, but I hope Epic gets the weapon balance right this time. The original UT was just about perfect in this respect, but the two subsequent games paled in comparison with just about everything toned down a lot. One thing I like about the UT games is that the textures are much larger than other games; the S3TC packages for the original UT put just about any modern game to shame in terms of texture detail.
reallyscrued
Platinum Member
- Jul 28, 2004
- 2,618
- 5
- 81
Actually, yeah, 'cause that seems to be what others are doing. FarCry uses 2D trees until you view them at a close enough distance, and also all the extra features you can find in the ini's of the likes of Doom and Unreal. The thing is, go too far with graphics and the lower man will whine, but go not far enough, and those with GTX's will whine. There is no win-win, so what you have to do is work off the middle. And they aren't.
Please stop calling me Carmack, I'm sure as hell not, but neither are you, and that isn't getting you anywhere.
Are you an idiot? There was nothing at ALL wrong with what he said. He didn't say "the game WILL be unoptimized", he said "the game sure IS unoptimized", which it definitely is--now. All it takes is a person with a fvcking brain to realize that the current demo for F.E.A.R. IS unoptimized, and that person is obviously not you.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter